I'll just say this: I like agnostics a lot more than athiests, that being said...
Athiests are, in my opinion religious: They believe there is no God. They are as firm in this conviction as any Christian/Hindu/Muslim, etc. is in his/her believe that there is a God. Any statement to the contrary invokes a reaction quite similar to what a Christian would have when his beliefs are argued against, and there is a fair (if not large) amount of intolerance towards those whose beliefs are not identical.
Agnostics, on the other hand, are far more open-minded. They are willing to see either way, and aren't going to immediately reject either, viewing both as a possibility, neither of which can be proven.
But, in my view, agnostics also miss the point of religion entirely: To believe in something that is not known, and is not proveable by any known methods, and more importantly, to accept the fact that it may never be proveable at all.
Mass insanity? Maybe. But most theoretical scientists proceed with some facts, but largely a belief that there is something there, and they work and act upon their beliefs (even if their theory may never be 'proven'). Scientists have invested billions of dollars and more than a few man-hours around the ideas of the 'standard model' of particles, or to join the standard model with quantum physics using these things called 'strings'. Yet they plod on, sustained by their belief that some good may come of their research.
Einstein's theory of relativity is a great example: He worked on it, argued about it, etc. But he never lived to see it 'proven'. In fact, he stated himself that it may never be proven, and that a single event can disprove it entirely. But the belief that he was right, and the evidence that seemed to support the theory brought it both recognition and acceptance. It is accepted as fact to a large enough extent that it is still used today.
I see religion as a similar thing: It's important to believe that we are, and can become, more than a sentient animal. It's important to aspire more than we are -- even if there is no possible way to prove we are more than a sentient animal. Most religions attempt to do get its followers to do this, and do it so well that they have lasted millenia. The particular way a religion may improve a person may not be to everybody's liking (it usually isn't). But your morning meal probably isn't to everybody's liking either.
You're forgetting something: You can still burn a CD from iTunes, and then rip it into whatever format you like. Lock-in isn't even an issue to me. Which do I trust more: A lock-in to what is in the end, Microsoft and it's Windows Media format, or to Apple with its FairPlay-DRM'd AAC?
Napster, along with pretty much every other if iTunes' competitors all use Windows Media -- somehow using Windows Media is more 'open'? There is absolutely nothing about Windows Media that is published, other than how to access and use its libraries. Apple's format has only the DRM unpublished (officially, anyway); the rest is AAC -- a standardized, published format.
Frankly, both aren't the optimum, but I'm far less comfortable with Microsoft holding the leash, and every music purchase from the array of Windows Media hawkers being controlled by Microsoft. I've tried buying music from a Windows Media store, and due to the lousy way Microsoft did WMA's DRM, I lost over $50 in music that is completely unplayable, claiming that I don't have the proper liscence, even though I backed up my 'licence' files, etc. That music store was not at all interested in customer service...
I honestly get sick of people who try to say that choosing an even more proprietary solution is the 'open' way -- espescially when that proprietary solution is Microsoft. Windows Media stores don't offer choice; they are even more restricting than iTunes. I've tried both, and iTunes is easily and handily the best, most 'open' method available. The only difference between Apple and Microsoft's way is that Apple is much more selective in whom can sell products with the 'black box' that decodes iTunes music (Apple and HP). Microsoft was far less discriminating in that respect; but the end result is the same in both cases: The black box is still entirely closed...
They are both closed systems. But I'm willing to live with iTunes, as it's the best solution available at the present time.
Just because there is a local law that makes it mandatory to mark food that contains GM ingredients, doesn't mean it will fly with the WTO. Don't forget, this is EXACTLY what got the US in trouble with respect to steel.
And in other countries it is legal to [...] marry a 14 year old
This is a state, not a federal juristiction in the USA. There are a couple of states, Utah (is/was) among them, that allows marriage of 14 year-olds (under certain conditions, including a judge's permission, partner is also under 18, etc.) The minimum age may have been increased recently, however; it's not one of those laws that people follow closely...
I grew up there and never heard of anybody getting married that young... Not leagally anyway.
In other news, Salt Lake City also has a law against carrying an uncovered ukulele (Hawaiian mini-guitar instrument) on the streets.
You forgot to mention that the good Ol US of A is threatening trade wars because we won't buy this stuff.
Actually, it isn't because you won't buy it; that is, of course, your choice. The problem is that it is illegal under World Trade Organization law to label food as "contains GM stuff", as you put it. Espescially since there is a problem with food that is not GM that is automatically labeled as GM food anyway.
It's sorta like the whole American steel thing -- The USA lost in the WTO for its stance -- even though it had that stance and laws on the books since before the WTO ever existed. But, since the USA is in violation of that particular law, it is being penalized for it. (note: This is one thing Bush wanted to repeal (and drop the penalty), but Congress & Senate won't let him.)
There's also this overall soreness about how Boeing isn't subsidized by the US government (and in fact is having quite a few financial problems -- although some of them are its own fault), yet has to compete with AirBus, which is heavily subsidized by multiple governments. (Not food related, but it is a trade issue).
So it's really a case of Europe is enforcing the WTO's trade rules on the USA in the case of steel, so the USA is threatening to enforce the WTO's rules on Europe over illegal labeling of food as being "GM" (it isn't leagal to label food as GM, even if it is GM), and over AirBus being so heavily subsidized by multiple governments, that it is bankrupting an American corporation that receives no subsidies.
There's a world of difference from being a Nazi (or even any variety of anti-semite) and trying to be prudent.
It's a bad thing for your country to reject aid workers because of their national origin (and in this case, religion).
It's worse, however, if you allow those workers into your country-- and are unable to keep suicide bombers from attacking them and killing innocent people.
A simple fact of the matter is that Sri Lanka is predominantly Muslim, which as a faith is largely benign, yet does seem to have the largest share of people who are willing to die as long as they take who they perceive as an enemy to their faith with them.
It's just irresponsible to basically create a situation in which a local extremist can easily and cheaply attack some Israelis -- espescially since extremists are not noted for minimizing innocent victims. ('The victims were not innocent. They shouldn't have accepted help from [Israelis]'). Extremists tend to have an 'If you're not with us you're against us' mentality, leaving no room for anything in between.
An attack on an Israeli aid group is probably the most likely in this Muslim country, and an attack on ANY aid group make other countries providing aid think twice about continuing support.
Yeah, it looks really bad; but the alternative is quite likely to end up being worse.
There are plenty of countries that need help, and many don't have anything against Israel. It's not like Israel won't be providing aid. I prefer this headline to 'Islamic extremists destroy Israeli aid station in sri lanka, hundreds dead'.
Yes, it's unfortunate that humanity still carries this kind of hatred around. But pretending that it doesn't exist won't make it go away.
It's just yet another clone of the BeOS UI, and a bad one at that.
Not being that familiar with the BeOS UI (I played with BeOS, but that's about as far as it went, since it didn't support most of my hardware). Just exactly what makes it a bad clone of the BeOS UI?
Or, perhaps a bit more clearly: What about the BeOS UI is so different (and wonderful) compared to any of the other GUI's I've used (Mac, Win, CDE, KDE, GNOME, Photon, etc. The BeOS GUI didn't seem to have anything that set it apart from the others, other than instead of a full window title, it had a tab...
This current administration won't go after them. Given what they have been doing lately to fuckups, they would probably give Darl an award...
You seem to be under the delusion that some other administration would go after them. White collar crime is nothing new, as is the tacit guarantee that white collar criminals are virtually unpunished (with a few token ones like Martha Stewart and a couple of Enron officers). The fact is that it's nearly always the extremely wealthy, ivy-league educated that even compete for the presidency. And one thing can be said of the wealthy: They have a great deal more sympathy for the problems of their fellow upper crust than they do for the problems of any other economic strata. Democrat, Republican, whatever... The rich have the belief that they pay the taxes, so they should get the police -- not the areas that actually have crime. They pay the taxes, so the laws should benefit their lifestyles, not the mid and lower class.
And never forget that Kerry still has even more money than Bush.
Nor can I think of any president in the last half-century that did much to prosecute white-collar crime.
And before that, there was the great depression, where everybody was poor anyway...
Hmm... I've got it! We need another Theodore Roosevelt. A guy that spent his presidency breaking up monopolies and fighting for the working class. He's dead, though. And I doubt he'd win a modern election.
Remember that both countries are the major cause for islamic fundamentalism.
We are among the problems, yes. Don't forget the role of Israel, though. There's more than a little bitterness about its existence to begin with; the Zionist movement had already won more than a few enemies by the time the UN created the states of Palestine and Israel. Then the series of conflicts involving Israel and the rest of the Arab world didn't help much -- with both sides commiting more than a fair share of atrocities. Palestinians stapping bombs to their kids and sending them off to kill jews, jewish 'settlers' forcing palestinians off palestinian land at gunpoint and enforcing their theft in the same way. And then the attitude by many islamic countries that since the US abstained from votes condemning Israels actions, they must be on Israel's side (an ironic thing, seeing if the US were that supportive of israel, it would have used its veto power.)
I just have no appreciation for the "if you aren't with us, you're against us" mentality. It utterly rejects the notion that somebody is trying to remain neutral, that they don't know enough to get involved, or they just don't care about the conflict.
The BIG difference between the two countries is religion. France tends to be very unreligious, if not sometimes antireligious (France have a history of distrust for religion since 1700, with even violent actions towards priests). OTOH, US is very religious, and has a history of distrust, if not sometimes outright opposition to atheism.
It isn't so much that the US is very religious; a much greater portion of the citizens attend religious services on a regular basis, but even these are in the minority. The majority in the US consider themselves "spiritual, but not religious" -- meaning that they believe in a God and some notion of an afterlife or pre-life (or both), however they don't attend religious services and dislike it when somebody brings the subject up.
The US constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Much of what is seen as religious zealotry or 'distrust of atheism' in the US is actually backlash of a notoriously conservative society to what they percieve as a threat to many of its citizens core beliefs. And I'm not speaking of any religious belief -- I'm speaking of the belief that the government has no right or authority to interfere in any way with the religious beliefs of any citizen. The belief that a duty of all citizens is to be tolerant of a belief that differs from one's own, and accept that wisdom can still come from that belief.
Until recent decades, the courts would throw out most cases that center on religion, saying that they have no authority. But lately, courts have been taking such cases, and more important, ruling on the side of one particular faith (often, though not exclusively, atheism/humanism). In particular, cases preventing citizens from praying in schools (prohibiting the free excersize [of religion]), as well as other issues with reguards to citizens making donations to a city that are... religious in nature, but of cultural and historical value (such as the '10 Commandments'), which are still influential in United States Law. Either way, its got quite a few people upset that there are judgements being passed that, in their view, prevent them from freely excersizing their religion.
This is the thing that has been causing what is seen as a 'religious frenzy' in the US. Churches are more than happy to share their outrage on this subject, and those who dislike religion are happy to claim it as religious zealotry and/or fundamentalism.
Good post, actually. Some of the grammar could be a bit more clear (meaning the phrase can apply two ways...), but it's a fairly rude thing to correct one on it, since I only know a few words in French.
One interesting thing that is true of pretty much everyone, but espescially applies in this case: Both sides dislike pride and arrogance, and both think they see it in the other.
I certainly see France's side of the story, as they are putting up far more funding than any other single country for the ITER, with the EU putting up some-odd 40%. I see Russia's agreement with the French location, as it's a shorter ride from Moscow to France than Japan. China has historical differences with Japan, so they aren't going to want Japan to host it. South Korea doesn't have as much animosity to Japan as China, and likes the shorter travel to Japan than to France. And the US trades more with Japan than France, so they'll side with their bigger trade partner.
Personally, I like the Japanses site, but since I'm not going to be working there, it's a moot point.
However, I see the following bit of irony, which tells me more than anything that France and the US are more alike than either side would like to believe: Diplomatically speaking, the whole ITER thing is a mess, and has been before the US became involved. Now, if we can differentiate the action(s) taken from their circumstances, focusing only on the actions:
In Iraq, the US had its opinion, wanted to pursue it, worked to get international help, met with resistance and was in the end unwilling to yield. So the US went on its own and took whomever they could with them. Diplomatically, this was a complete failure. (Other issues are beyond the scope of the irony).
With ITER, France has its opinion, wanted to pursue it, worked to get international help, met with resistance and was in the end unwilling to yield. So France (threatens) to go on its own and take whomever they could with them. Again, this is a diplomatic failure.
The consequences of France's diplomatic failure are probably nowhere near as bad as the failure of the US, they still show that both countries can be quite stubborn.
I'm not too worried: The US is not putting too much into ITER, focusing more of its efforts on what a large number of American scientists believe to be a better method: Shooting a tritium pellet with lasers, which is going to be done at the USA's NIF (National Ignition Facility). I'm actually quite happy about this: It is two separate tracks to generate fusion power, both having tremendous promise. There's no substitute for research, and they will likely end up (possibly quite unintentionally) solving each other's problems along the way (as well as a great many other problems as well).
Shielded? Sure. We do it all the time in a fission reactor. It's done with dense materials -- like Lead. Or about fourty feet of water. Concrete is also used.
Another thing that makes quite a difference is the fuel. According to a recent Popular (Science/Mechanics... I forget) Deuterium-Deuterium is largely considered unfeasable at the current time, Tritium-Deuterium creates fairly high levels of radiation. Helium3-Deuterium creates considerably less radiation than Tritium-Deuterium, and Helium-3+Helium-3 creates nearly none. Of course, Helium-3 is pretty hard to come by... which is why it was in an article about mining the moon.
And the cost for such cells is prohibitive to the average homeowner, and most power utilities are already set up to make live a living hell for those who wish to sell their excess power to the utility, making it even harder to pay off. Taking out a second mortgage on a power source that you'll most likely have to make use of the warranty on, as well as incurring decades worth of debt; not most people's (or their bank's) idea of a wise investment, when there is an alternative that is hardly more expensive over that 30 years. Then there's the power conversion and regulation equipment, among other things. It is just to expensive and too big a problem for most people to even consider. It's too big a risk in most people's minds. Enron stock was a guaranteed thing once upon a time.
It also snows in most areas of the US, reducing power output significantly. Plus there's the headaches involved with having either no power at night, or having to rely on other sources of energy during that time. (Again, a real problem in more northern latitudes).
You forgot the caveat with those solar cells you linked to: They haven't been able to create a working solar cell yet. All that's been proven is that it's physically possible to do. You may as well talk up the ITER's efforts as if there is already a working commercial fusion power plant.
The worst part of nuclear power, IMHO, is that it's done so poorly. Not that the people who run the plants aren't competant; it's just that FUD about nuclear energy has created a number of these problems. So well-meaning citizens believe they are doing the right thing, but are in fact making things worse.
In the US, there are the following problems (among others). * Throwing away nuclear fuel rods that are 98% unspent is a waste. Reprocessing the fuel is a violation of US Federal law, in spite of other countries (France comes to mind) reprocessing fuel for decades, drastically reducing the amount of high-level waste from their reactors. * Forcing all nuclear fuel to be burnt for commercial purposes to be spent in reactors that are decades old, more inefficient, and much more dangerous than newer reactor designs. (No new reactors in the US in three decades). * Forcing the state of Nevada to accept nuclear waste from plants predominantly east of the Mississippi river; politics played a larger role in selection of Yucca Mountain as a moratorium for nuclear waste than science ever did. * Either way, that's a lot of nuclear waste, and it's being hauled a long way. * You can expect the National Guard unit of Nevada and probably Utah to block the shipment and/or storage of the waste through/in their states. Believe it or not, several states have done this in the past, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, etc. Basically it's their way of telling the states 'back east' to take care of their own problem, instead of forcing their garbage on somebody else 2,000 miles away. There's also plenty of angry residents (with guns), called 'downwinders,' who are more than a little resentful of the last time the nation stuck them with the bill of America's nuclear problems. Lots can go wrong there.
--Downwinders refers to the prevailing wind West-East across the southwestern US, and nuclear testing during the Cold War. There was no small amount of highly radioactive fallout that was inflicted upon these people, causing tainted water, birth deformaties, radiation poisioning and/or sickness, massive cancer rates, and a legion of other health problems (both human and livestock -- remember it's cattle country.) They are also none to pleased with talk about underground testing of 'nuclear bunker busters', as the most recent case of radioactive fallout to hit them was from an underground test that went REALLY wrong.
Not to mention the general fear and paranoia reguarding anything with the word 'nuclear' or 'radiation' in it.
Newer methods of coal combustion are able to drastically reduce or eliminate mercury emissions from coal burning.
That being said, there are only a few such plants in existence, with thousands of the regular polluting plants that will be running for several more decades, which will more than compensate for the lack of mercury released by these new coal plants. Old methods of coal combustion are messy -- mercury is only one of the problems; don't forget sulfur dioxide and the acid rain it causes.
And another thought -- There is no good place to put mercury; it's nasty stuff period. Water, air, soil -- who cares? It's deadly anywhere. Maybe we can store it in Yucca Mountain with high level nuclear waste. Keep the deadliest stuff together, and such...
The problem is that there are far too many people who claim to be environmentalists, but in fact are entirely ignorant of the facts. It's a mob mentality where they attain power by spewing their opinions in a large group, believing that repitition can make something true.
It isn't a problem with environmentalists -- not real ones, anyway. It's a problem with people use the environment to push their own personal agenda -- like promoting their personal choice in recreation (hiking is a good example), by 'preserving' public land using a definition that only allows human use in the form of hiking, with no other way to access the area, or recreate in it (even horseback riding is verboten). This, of course, doesn't go well with the rest of the voting public that prefers to recreate in other ways, and often paints a negative image of environmentalism in general.
Real environmentalists look at the facts and are willing to say that it's better to go with a less damaging source of power, than it is to stonewall for decades demanding a perfect source of power, forcing us to use the current/old massively polluting methods. (The damage there is already done, goes the mantra of the stonewall crowd.)
Honestly, the faux environmentalists seem more like religious fanatacists: The similarities are striking - they use their cause (environment or diety/dogma) to support their (frequently narrow) worldview, often in disagreement with non-fanatics of the same group. This allows the fanatics to strike down any kind of disagreement (even facts) with impunity, and en masse. The result is the same to those of us who at least attempt to reason: It gives the group (either environmentalism or religion) an undeserved and unfair black eye.
The major supplier, no. A major supplier, yes. There are estimates that wind power will generate as much electricity in the US in 50 years as Nuclear Fission does now (about 20%). More conservative estimates are arount 5-15%. That's a hefty chunk of Watts by anybody's measure.
Well, rather unscrupulous nuclear tests by several national governments (usually military in nature), as well as a news media more interested in spreading FUD than facts because FUD gets higher ratings. FUD doesn't have an origin in Microsoft, SCO, or the past few millenia's time. Nuclear-FUD is still all too common in the US and elsewhere. There hasn't been a new nuclear power plant built in the US in my lifetime, and I doubt I'll see one until major popluation centers go completely without any electrical power for a week or so. (The recent eastern US powerout isn't one of these; it was largely solved in within a day)
The problem is that educating people about the cost/benefit of Nuclear fission is made difficult by both the cost of educating them, and the resistance in the populace that is placed there by news-media FUD.
Wind farms certainly will cover as much (if not more) surface area/acerage as the tall blocky buildings. And the blocky buildings aren't designed to be as efficient as possible in removing kinetic energy from air -- the streets of Chicago are still windy. Large buildings also are generally clumped tightly together, acting more like a single unit on a large scale than the relatively widely-spaced wind turbines.
I have yet to see a 'magic bullet' in terms of generating electrical power. There just isn't one yet. Every single kind of power generation has problems involved with it.
Wind -- Mentioned in article, provides a place for raptors to perch, allowing them to expend much less energy when hunting for prey, which decimates rodent populations (bad thing? depends on who you ask...) Also has been known to kill birds in the rotors. Plus rather complex and expensive engineering problems in generating the power to begin with as well.
Hydroelectric -- Trouble with fish populations, sediment issues, changes some local ecosystems. Removes hiking areas from lobbyists, prompting them to protect their recreation in the name of environmental protection (google 'drain Lake Powell.') But it's more straightforward to generate power than wind.
Coal -- Cheap, mature technology -- becoming MUCH cleaner than it has historically been. Lots of coal. Still quite polluting.
Oil -- Mature, relatively cheap -- also becoming more efficient, but still quite polluting, oil prices skyrocketing.
Biomass -- Uses biological sources (plant matter, leaves, food scraps, paper, etc.) to generate power -- less polluting than many think, since the 'fuel' used releases the same carbon into the atmosphere anyway (often within a few weeks/months) -- it just accelerates the process. Still, it's not the most optimal of solutions, and there are always valid concerns about toxic chemicals being released from burning garbage.
Natural Gas -- Cheap, cleaner than oil or coal, can be placed near suburban areas with few complaints (My job is next door to one, and I don't even hear it). Prices going up, limited fuel.
Nuclear Fission -- Can be very cheap, very little airborne pollution. Becoming very mature. Also has nuclear waste, public paranoia, U.S. refusal to reprocess used nuclear fuel that is 98% unburned -- they just 'dispose' of it. No new power-generating reactor has been built in the US in my lifetime. Although I hate to admit it, I personally think it may be something we'll have to rely on until well after I'm dead. Hopefully it'll buy time to get Fusion to a more practical state.
Nuclear Fusion -- Still experimental/unable to generate useful power, hopefully clean. Depending on the type of fusion, can be anywhere from near zero radiation (and radioactive waste) to levels (both instantaneous, and in terms of high-level waste) that have the same problems as fission.
Solar -- Woefully inefficient, one of the most expensive methods of generating electricity, although prices are dropping.
Geothermal -- I've heard this is (or has been) a maintenance nightmare, and is only practical in certain geological locations anyway.
Cold 'Fusion' -- not really sure if it belongs here, but there are still question marks about where the 'excess energy' generated is coming from. It simply sounds too good to be true - clean, safe power? I want to believe...
There are other types -- but I still haven't heard of the magic bullet. The best thing we can do as a society is strive for the highest efficiency in electrical use -- from generation to transmission to expenditure. Turn off those lights when you're not in the room (and, even if you are in the room if they aren't necessary...)
You oughtta look into Novell's MyRealBox, which provides free web, IMAP and POP email, ad-free, etc. They only take applications from time-to-time, but I've been using them for about 4-5 years with no problems.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll just say this: I like agnostics a lot more than athiests, that being said...
Athiests are, in my opinion religious: They believe there is no God. They are as firm in this conviction as any Christian/Hindu/Muslim, etc. is in his/her believe that there is a God. Any statement to the contrary invokes a reaction quite similar to what a Christian would have when his beliefs are argued against, and there is a fair (if not large) amount of intolerance towards those whose beliefs are not identical.
Agnostics, on the other hand, are far more open-minded. They are willing to see either way, and aren't going to immediately reject either, viewing both as a possibility, neither of which can be proven.
But, in my view, agnostics also miss the point of religion entirely: To believe in something that is not known, and is not proveable by any known methods, and more importantly, to accept the fact that it may never be proveable at all.
Mass insanity? Maybe. But most theoretical scientists proceed with some facts, but largely a belief that there is something there, and they work and act upon their beliefs (even if their theory may never be 'proven'). Scientists have invested billions of dollars and more than a few man-hours around the ideas of the 'standard model' of particles, or to join the standard model with quantum physics using these things called 'strings'. Yet they plod on, sustained by their belief that some good may come of their research.
Einstein's theory of relativity is a great example: He worked on it, argued about it, etc. But he never lived to see it 'proven'. In fact, he stated himself that it may never be proven, and that a single event can disprove it entirely. But the belief that he was right, and the evidence that seemed to support the theory brought it both recognition and acceptance. It is accepted as fact to a large enough extent that it is still used today.
I see religion as a similar thing: It's important to believe that we are, and can become, more than a sentient animal. It's important to aspire more than we are -- even if there is no possible way to prove we are more than a sentient animal. Most religions attempt to do get its followers to do this, and do it so well that they have lasted millenia. The particular way a religion may improve a person may not be to everybody's liking (it usually isn't). But your morning meal probably isn't to everybody's liking either.
You're forgetting something: You can still burn a CD from iTunes, and then rip it into whatever format you like. Lock-in isn't even an issue to me. Which do I trust more: A lock-in to what is in the end, Microsoft and it's Windows Media format, or to Apple with its FairPlay-DRM'd AAC?
Napster, along with pretty much every other if iTunes' competitors all use Windows Media -- somehow using Windows Media is more 'open'? There is absolutely nothing about Windows Media that is published, other than how to access and use its libraries. Apple's format has only the DRM unpublished (officially, anyway); the rest is AAC -- a standardized, published format.
Frankly, both aren't the optimum, but I'm far less comfortable with Microsoft holding the leash, and every music purchase from the array of Windows Media hawkers being controlled by Microsoft. I've tried buying music from a Windows Media store, and due to the lousy way Microsoft did WMA's DRM, I lost over $50 in music that is completely unplayable, claiming that I don't have the proper liscence, even though I backed up my 'licence' files, etc. That music store was not at all interested in customer service...
I honestly get sick of people who try to say that choosing an even more proprietary solution is the 'open' way -- espescially when that proprietary solution is Microsoft. Windows Media stores don't offer choice; they are even more restricting than iTunes. I've tried both, and iTunes is easily and handily the best, most 'open' method available. The only difference between Apple and Microsoft's way is that Apple is much more selective in whom can sell products with the 'black box' that decodes iTunes music (Apple and HP). Microsoft was far less discriminating in that respect; but the end result is the same in both cases: The black box is still entirely closed...
They are both closed systems. But I'm willing to live with iTunes, as it's the best solution available at the present time.
Ah; I forgot you wanted sources. Not that it took more than 10 seconds to google....
, 00 .html
2 00 3/09/12_schmitzr_gmosoybeans/
s _i d=1028
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,951489
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/
http://www.genewatch.org/WTO/WTO_background.htm
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?new
Just because there is a local law that makes it mandatory to mark food that contains GM ingredients, doesn't mean it will fly with the WTO. Don't forget, this is EXACTLY what got the US in trouble with respect to steel.
Cruel to the gorilla, that is. Even if they are getting paid well for it.
And in other countries it is legal to [...] marry a 14 year old
This is a state, not a federal juristiction in the USA. There are a couple of states, Utah (is/was) among them, that allows marriage of 14 year-olds (under certain conditions, including a judge's permission, partner is also under 18, etc.) The minimum age may have been increased recently, however; it's not one of those laws that people follow closely...
I grew up there and never heard of anybody getting married that young... Not leagally anyway.
In other news, Salt Lake City also has a law against carrying an uncovered ukulele (Hawaiian mini-guitar instrument) on the streets.
You forgot to mention that the good Ol US of A is threatening trade wars because we won't buy this stuff.
Actually, it isn't because you won't buy it; that is, of course, your choice. The problem is that it is illegal under World Trade Organization law to label food as "contains GM stuff", as you put it. Espescially since there is a problem with food that is not GM that is automatically labeled as GM food anyway.
It's sorta like the whole American steel thing -- The USA lost in the WTO for its stance -- even though it had that stance and laws on the books since before the WTO ever existed. But, since the USA is in violation of that particular law, it is being penalized for it. (note: This is one thing Bush wanted to repeal (and drop the penalty), but Congress & Senate won't let him.)
There's also this overall soreness about how Boeing isn't subsidized by the US government (and in fact is having quite a few financial problems -- although some of them are its own fault), yet has to compete with AirBus, which is heavily subsidized by multiple governments. (Not food related, but it is a trade issue).
So it's really a case of Europe is enforcing the WTO's trade rules on the USA in the case of steel, so the USA is threatening to enforce the WTO's rules on Europe over illegal labeling of food as being "GM" (it isn't leagal to label food as GM, even if it is GM), and over AirBus being so heavily subsidized by multiple governments, that it is bankrupting an American corporation that receives no subsidies.
There's a world of difference from being a Nazi (or even any variety of anti-semite) and trying to be prudent.
It's a bad thing for your country to reject aid workers because of their national origin (and in this case, religion).
It's worse, however, if you allow those workers into your country-- and are unable to keep suicide bombers from attacking them and killing innocent people.
A simple fact of the matter is that Sri Lanka is predominantly Muslim, which as a faith is largely benign, yet does seem to have the largest share of people who are willing to die as long as they take who they perceive as an enemy to their faith with them.
It's just irresponsible to basically create a situation in which a local extremist can easily and cheaply attack some Israelis -- espescially since extremists are not noted for minimizing innocent victims. ('The victims were not innocent. They shouldn't have accepted help from [Israelis]'). Extremists tend to have an 'If you're not with us you're against us' mentality, leaving no room for anything in between.
An attack on an Israeli aid group is probably the most likely in this Muslim country, and an attack on ANY aid group make other countries providing aid think twice about continuing support.
Yeah, it looks really bad; but the alternative is quite likely to end up being worse.
There are plenty of countries that need help, and many don't have anything against Israel. It's not like Israel won't be providing aid. I prefer this headline to 'Islamic extremists destroy Israeli aid station in sri lanka, hundreds dead'.
Yes, it's unfortunate that humanity still carries this kind of hatred around. But pretending that it doesn't exist won't make it go away.
It's just yet another clone of the BeOS UI, and a bad one at that.
Not being that familiar with the BeOS UI (I played with BeOS, but that's about as far as it went, since it didn't support most of my hardware). Just exactly what makes it a bad clone of the BeOS UI?
Or, perhaps a bit more clearly: What about the BeOS UI is so different (and wonderful) compared to any of the other GUI's I've used (Mac, Win, CDE, KDE, GNOME, Photon, etc. The BeOS GUI didn't seem to have anything that set it apart from the others, other than instead of a full window title, it had a tab...
And I was about to go to sleep. So much for that...
No, that's how the space shuttle is supposed to work ;)
This current administration won't go after them. Given what they have been doing lately to fuckups, they would probably give Darl an award...
You seem to be under the delusion that some other administration would go after them. White collar crime is nothing new, as is the tacit guarantee that white collar criminals are virtually unpunished (with a few token ones like Martha Stewart and a couple of Enron officers). The fact is that it's nearly always the extremely wealthy, ivy-league educated that even compete for the presidency. And one thing can be said of the wealthy: They have a great deal more sympathy for the problems of their fellow upper crust than they do for the problems of any other economic strata. Democrat, Republican, whatever... The rich have the belief that they pay the taxes, so they should get the police -- not the areas that actually have crime. They pay the taxes, so the laws should benefit their lifestyles, not the mid and lower class.
And never forget that Kerry still has even more money than Bush.
Nor can I think of any president in the last half-century that did much to prosecute white-collar crime.
And before that, there was the great depression, where everybody was poor anyway...
Hmm... I've got it! We need another Theodore Roosevelt. A guy that spent his presidency breaking up monopolies and fighting for the working class.
He's dead, though. And I doubt he'd win a modern election.
Remember that both countries are the major cause for islamic fundamentalism.
We are among the problems, yes. Don't forget the role of Israel, though. There's more than a little bitterness about its existence to begin with; the Zionist movement had already won more than a few enemies by the time the UN created the states of Palestine and Israel. Then the series of conflicts involving Israel and the rest of the Arab world didn't help much -- with both sides commiting more than a fair share of atrocities. Palestinians stapping bombs to their kids and sending them off to kill jews, jewish 'settlers' forcing palestinians off palestinian land at gunpoint and enforcing their theft in the same way. And then the attitude by many islamic countries that since the US abstained from votes condemning Israels actions, they must be on Israel's side (an ironic thing, seeing if the US were that supportive of israel, it would have used its veto power.)
I just have no appreciation for the "if you aren't with us, you're against us" mentality. It utterly rejects the notion that somebody is trying to remain neutral, that they don't know enough to get involved, or they just don't care about the conflict.
The BIG difference between the two countries is religion. France tends to be very unreligious, if not sometimes antireligious (France have a history of distrust for religion since 1700, with even violent actions towards priests). OTOH, US is very religious, and has a history of distrust, if not sometimes outright opposition to atheism.
It isn't so much that the US is very religious; a much greater portion of the citizens attend religious services on a regular basis, but even these are in the minority. The majority in the US consider themselves "spiritual, but not religious" -- meaning that they believe in a God and some notion of an afterlife or pre-life (or both), however they don't attend religious services and dislike it when somebody brings the subject up.
The US constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Much of what is seen as religious zealotry or 'distrust of atheism' in the US is actually backlash of a notoriously conservative society to what they percieve as a threat to many of its citizens core beliefs. And I'm not speaking of any religious belief -- I'm speaking of the belief that the government has no right or authority to interfere in any way with the religious beliefs of any citizen. The belief that a duty of all citizens is to be tolerant of a belief that differs from one's own, and accept that wisdom can still come from that belief.
Until recent decades, the courts would throw out most cases that center on religion, saying that they have no authority. But lately, courts have been taking such cases, and more important, ruling on the side of one particular faith (often, though not exclusively, atheism/humanism). In particular, cases preventing citizens from praying in schools (prohibiting the free excersize [of religion]), as well as other issues with reguards to citizens making donations to a city that are... religious in nature, but of cultural and historical value (such as the '10 Commandments'), which are still influential in United States Law. Either way, its got quite a few people upset that there are judgements being passed that, in their view, prevent them from freely excersizing their religion.
This is the thing that has been causing what is seen as a 'religious frenzy' in the US. Churches are more than happy to share their outrage on this subject, and those who dislike religion are happy to claim it as religious zealotry and/or fundamentalism.
Good post, actually. Some of the grammar could be a bit more clear (meaning the phrase can apply two ways...), but it's a fairly rude thing to correct one on it, since I only know a few words in French.
One interesting thing that is true of pretty much everyone, but espescially applies in this case: Both sides dislike pride and arrogance, and both think they see it in the other.
I certainly see France's side of the story, as they are putting up far more funding than any other single country for the ITER, with the EU putting up some-odd 40%. I see Russia's agreement with the French location, as it's a shorter ride from Moscow to France than Japan. China has historical differences with Japan, so they aren't going to want Japan to host it. South Korea doesn't have as much animosity to Japan as China, and likes the shorter travel to Japan than to France. And the US trades more with Japan than France, so they'll side with their bigger trade partner.
Personally, I like the Japanses site, but since I'm not going to be working there, it's a moot point.
However, I see the following bit of irony, which tells me more than anything that France and the US are more alike than either side would like to believe: Diplomatically speaking, the whole ITER thing is a mess, and has been before the US became involved. Now, if we can differentiate the action(s) taken from their circumstances, focusing only on the actions:
In Iraq, the US had its opinion, wanted to pursue it, worked to get international help, met with resistance and was in the end unwilling to yield. So the US went on its own and took whomever they could with them. Diplomatically, this was a complete failure. (Other issues are beyond the scope of the irony).
With ITER, France has its opinion, wanted to pursue it, worked to get international help, met with resistance and was in the end unwilling to yield. So France (threatens) to go on its own and take whomever they could with them. Again, this is a diplomatic failure.
The consequences of France's diplomatic failure are probably nowhere near as bad as the failure of the US, they still show that both countries can be quite stubborn.
I'm not too worried: The US is not putting too much into ITER, focusing more of its efforts on what a large number of American scientists believe to be a better method: Shooting a tritium pellet with lasers, which is going to be done at the USA's NIF (National Ignition Facility). I'm actually quite happy about this: It is two separate tracks to generate fusion power, both having tremendous promise. There's no substitute for research, and they will likely end up (possibly quite unintentionally) solving each other's problems along the way (as well as a great many other problems as well).
Shielded? Sure. We do it all the time in a fission reactor. It's done with dense materials -- like Lead. Or about fourty feet of water. Concrete is also used.
Another thing that makes quite a difference is the fuel. According to a recent Popular (Science/Mechanics... I forget) Deuterium-Deuterium is largely considered unfeasable at the current time, Tritium-Deuterium creates fairly high levels of radiation. Helium3-Deuterium creates considerably less radiation than Tritium-Deuterium, and Helium-3+Helium-3 creates nearly none. Of course, Helium-3 is pretty hard to come by... which is why it was in an article about mining the moon.
And the cost for such cells is prohibitive to the average homeowner, and most power utilities are already set up to make live a living hell for those who wish to sell their excess power to the utility, making it even harder to pay off. Taking out a second mortgage on a power source that you'll most likely have to make use of the warranty on, as well as incurring decades worth of debt; not most people's (or their bank's) idea of a wise investment, when there is an alternative that is hardly more expensive over that 30 years. Then there's the power conversion and regulation equipment, among other things. It is just to expensive and too big a problem for most people to even consider. It's too big a risk in most people's minds. Enron stock was a guaranteed thing once upon a time.
It also snows in most areas of the US, reducing power output significantly. Plus there's the headaches involved with having either no power at night, or having to rely on other sources of energy during that time. (Again, a real problem in more northern latitudes).
You forgot the caveat with those solar cells you linked to: They haven't been able to create a working solar cell yet. All that's been proven is that it's physically possible to do. You may as well talk up the ITER's efforts as if there is already a working commercial fusion power plant.
Possible != practical
The worst part of nuclear power, IMHO, is that it's done so poorly. Not that the people who run the plants aren't competant; it's just that FUD about nuclear energy has created a number of these problems. So well-meaning citizens believe they are doing the right thing, but are in fact making things worse.
In the US, there are the following problems (among others).
* Throwing away nuclear fuel rods that are 98% unspent is a waste. Reprocessing the fuel is a violation of US Federal law, in spite of other countries (France comes to mind) reprocessing fuel for decades, drastically reducing the amount of high-level waste from their reactors.
* Forcing all nuclear fuel to be burnt for commercial purposes to be spent in reactors that are decades old, more inefficient, and much more dangerous than newer reactor designs. (No new reactors in the US in three decades).
* Forcing the state of Nevada to accept nuclear waste from plants predominantly east of the Mississippi river; politics played a larger role in selection of Yucca Mountain as a moratorium for nuclear waste than science ever did.
* Either way, that's a lot of nuclear waste, and it's being hauled a long way.
* You can expect the National Guard unit of Nevada and probably Utah to block the shipment and/or storage of the waste through/in their states. Believe it or not, several states have done this in the past, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, etc. Basically it's their way of telling the states 'back east' to take care of their own problem, instead of forcing their garbage on somebody else 2,000 miles away. There's also plenty of angry residents (with guns), called 'downwinders,' who are more than a little resentful of the last time the nation stuck them with the bill of America's nuclear problems. Lots can go wrong there.
--Downwinders refers to the prevailing wind West-East across the southwestern US, and nuclear testing during the Cold War. There was no small amount of highly radioactive fallout that was inflicted upon these people, causing tainted water, birth deformaties, radiation poisioning and/or sickness, massive cancer rates, and a legion of other health problems (both human and livestock -- remember it's cattle country.) They are also none to pleased with talk about underground testing of 'nuclear bunker busters', as the most recent case of radioactive fallout to hit them was from an underground test that went REALLY wrong.
Not to mention the general fear and paranoia reguarding anything with the word 'nuclear' or 'radiation' in it.
Newer methods of coal combustion are able to drastically reduce or eliminate mercury emissions from coal burning.
That being said, there are only a few such plants in existence, with thousands of the regular polluting plants that will be running for several more decades, which will more than compensate for the lack of mercury released by these new coal plants. Old methods of coal combustion are messy -- mercury is only one of the problems; don't forget sulfur dioxide and the acid rain it causes.
And another thought -- There is no good place to put mercury; it's nasty stuff period. Water, air, soil -- who cares? It's deadly anywhere. Maybe we can store it in Yucca Mountain with high level nuclear waste. Keep the deadliest stuff together, and such...
The problem is that there are far too many people who claim to be environmentalists, but in fact are entirely ignorant of the facts. It's a mob mentality where they attain power by spewing their opinions in a large group, believing that repitition can make something true.
It isn't a problem with environmentalists -- not real ones, anyway. It's a problem with people use the environment to push their own personal agenda -- like promoting their personal choice in recreation (hiking is a good example), by 'preserving' public land using a definition that only allows human use in the form of hiking, with no other way to access the area, or recreate in it (even horseback riding is verboten). This, of course, doesn't go well with the rest of the voting public that prefers to recreate in other ways, and often paints a negative image of environmentalism in general.
Real environmentalists look at the facts and are willing to say that it's better to go with a less damaging source of power, than it is to stonewall for decades demanding a perfect source of power, forcing us to use the current/old massively polluting methods. (The damage there is already done, goes the mantra of the stonewall crowd.)
Honestly, the faux environmentalists seem more like religious fanatacists: The similarities are striking - they use their cause (environment or diety/dogma) to support their (frequently narrow) worldview, often in disagreement with non-fanatics of the same group. This allows the fanatics to strike down any kind of disagreement (even facts) with impunity, and en masse. The result is the same to those of us who at least attempt to reason: It gives the group (either environmentalism or religion) an undeserved and unfair black eye.
The major supplier, no. A major supplier, yes. There are estimates that wind power will generate as much electricity in the US in 50 years as Nuclear Fission does now (about 20%). More conservative estimates are arount 5-15%. That's a hefty chunk of Watts by anybody's measure.
Well, rather unscrupulous nuclear tests by several national governments (usually military in nature), as well as a news media more interested in spreading FUD than facts because FUD gets higher ratings. FUD doesn't have an origin in Microsoft, SCO, or the past few millenia's time. Nuclear-FUD is still all too common in the US and elsewhere. There hasn't been a new nuclear power plant built in the US in my lifetime, and I doubt I'll see one until major popluation centers go completely without any electrical power for a week or so. (The recent eastern US powerout isn't one of these; it was largely solved in within a day)
The problem is that educating people about the cost/benefit of Nuclear fission is made difficult by both the cost of educating them, and the resistance in the populace that is placed there by news-media FUD.
Wind farms certainly will cover as much (if not more) surface area/acerage as the tall blocky buildings. And the blocky buildings aren't designed to be as efficient as possible in removing kinetic energy from air -- the streets of Chicago are still windy. Large buildings also are generally clumped tightly together, acting more like a single unit on a large scale than the relatively widely-spaced wind turbines.
I have yet to see a 'magic bullet' in terms of generating electrical power. There just isn't one yet. Every single kind of power generation has problems involved with it.
Wind -- Mentioned in article, provides a place for raptors to perch, allowing them to expend much less energy when hunting for prey, which decimates rodent populations (bad thing? depends on who you ask...) Also has been known to kill birds in the rotors. Plus rather complex and expensive engineering problems in generating the power to begin with as well.
Hydroelectric -- Trouble with fish populations, sediment issues, changes some local ecosystems. Removes hiking areas from lobbyists, prompting them to protect their recreation in the name of environmental protection (google 'drain Lake Powell.') But it's more straightforward to generate power than wind.
Coal -- Cheap, mature technology -- becoming MUCH cleaner than it has historically been. Lots of coal. Still quite polluting.
Oil -- Mature, relatively cheap -- also becoming more efficient, but still quite polluting, oil prices skyrocketing.
Biomass -- Uses biological sources (plant matter, leaves, food scraps, paper, etc.) to generate power -- less polluting than many think, since the 'fuel' used releases the same carbon into the atmosphere anyway (often within a few weeks/months) -- it just accelerates the process. Still, it's not the most optimal of solutions, and there are always valid concerns about toxic chemicals being released from burning garbage.
Natural Gas -- Cheap, cleaner than oil or coal, can be placed near suburban areas with few complaints (My job is next door to one, and I don't even hear it). Prices going up, limited fuel.
Nuclear Fission -- Can be very cheap, very little airborne pollution. Becoming very mature. Also has nuclear waste, public paranoia, U.S. refusal to reprocess used nuclear fuel that is 98% unburned -- they just 'dispose' of it. No new power-generating reactor has been built in the US in my lifetime. Although I hate to admit it, I personally think it may be something we'll have to rely on until well after I'm dead. Hopefully it'll buy time to get Fusion to a more practical state.
Nuclear Fusion -- Still experimental/unable to generate useful power, hopefully clean. Depending on the type of fusion, can be anywhere from near zero radiation (and radioactive waste) to levels (both instantaneous, and in terms of high-level waste) that have the same problems as fission.
Solar -- Woefully inefficient, one of the most expensive methods of generating electricity, although prices are dropping.
Geothermal -- I've heard this is (or has been) a maintenance nightmare, and is only practical in certain geological locations anyway.
Cold 'Fusion' -- not really sure if it belongs here, but there are still question marks about where the 'excess energy' generated is coming from. It simply sounds too good to be true - clean, safe power? I want to believe...
There are other types -- but I still haven't heard of the magic bullet. The best thing we can do as a society is strive for the highest efficiency in electrical use -- from generation to transmission to expenditure. Turn off those lights when you're not in the room (and, even if you are in the room if they aren't necessary...)
You oughtta look into Novell's MyRealBox, which provides free web, IMAP and POP email, ad-free, etc. They only take applications from time-to-time, but I've been using them for about 4-5 years with no problems.